How to stop the depleted uranium ammunition: build thousand of bessler wheels

[broli]

Btw after reading one of the certificates about the Gera model that has been signed by some noble men. Something weird is stated.

" It is a unique and highly useful machine that rotates without any weights, wind, water, or spring mechanisms."

What does this leave behind? Ropes and pulleys :p.

Isn't this line very strange. Why would it be so specific to even out rule weights and springs. Surely if this was not the case Bessler would have told them to change the certificate for the risque of losing face if there were some of those things included. TIC TOC.

[ovyyus]

Broli, it's not strange at all. Weights, wind, water and spring mechanisms are commonly used to drive all manner of machines, both then and now. The statement simply tells us that nothing of that kind was seen connected to Bessler's wheel.

[MrTim]

Weights and springs were (are) also common in clockwork mechanisms. So he's just saying that that's not what he's using.

[Stewart]

Hi Broli

Ovyyus is right, the quote refers to the use of a weight descending on a rope which was a very common source of power for machines in Bessler's time. I can see how the quote could be confusing, however it has not been translated properly as a key word has been left out that removes all confusion (assuming you are quoting from page 109 of "Gründlicher Bericht" but if not then let me know the source you are referring to and I'll check it for you). Here's the original German text:

... eine künstliche und höchst-nützliche Machine, welche ohne alle äusserliche Gewichte/ Wind/ Wasser und Feder-Werck &c. durch einen gantz sonderbaren innerlichen Motum Perpetuum, ...

and my translation:

... an ingenious and extremely useful machine, which without any external weights, wind, water and spring-work etc. through a unique internal perpetual motion, ...

the word 'äusserlich' means external/outward/outside, so the quote is saying that the wheel has no external source of power of the form that people of the time were used to - windmill, waterwheel, wound spring drive, or weights descending on a rope. Bessler always admitted his wheels were driven by internal weights, and in a number of places he explains the difference between the classic use of weights to power machines and his own use of weights, saying that his weights are actually an intrinsic part of his PM device. Weights descending on a rope he refers to as Zimbel-Gewicht (Cymbal-Weights) and in one place tells Wagner to go back to school and learn what it means because he obviously doesn't know!

All the best
Stewart

[laikkis]

If 4 meter wheel raise 40 kg then 40 cm wheel will raise 4 kg. Is it possibly or not using only weight ? What we do not not understand in Newtons law?

[path_finder]

If 4 meter wheel raise 40 kg then 40 cm wheel will raise 4 kg

.
This assumption has no sense if you don't precise the duration (time)
Even heavy weights can be uploaded by a very small engine (Schwartzwald kuckuk).
It's just a question of time (the height multiplied by the weight is a WORK in JOULEs, made in one single second it becomes a POWER in WATTs)
Any weight can be lifted up with any size of wheel, you have just to select the correct diameter for the pulley where you attach the cord.
The question is WHAT POWER can furnish a Bessler wheel of one meter diameter, supplied with 8 weights of 1 kilogram (in depleted uranium for sure...),
rotating at 52 rpm?
The physicians will answer to you that the WORK available is the surface in green in my logo here at the left. For more complex curves the mathematicians invented the integral calculation (if you have the equation of the curve, just compute the primitives and calculate the delta of surfaces inside the curve). Then from this value of work, depending of the time of circulation of the vector along the curve (basically the rounds per second) you will obtain the power of your wheel.
Unfortunately this a to much theorical (the frictions are not included).
This is the reason with the apparatus of Jim_Mich (the Prony brake) is used more pragmatically.

[bluesgtr44]

This is another part of my confusion. Where does the inner force apply itself? It seems that if one wanted it to be fast....it would be driven from closer to the axle. If one wanted it to be powerful, then the place to apply the force would be at the perimeter...

If the mechanism hangs from the axle, as Wagner suggested, then the diameter of the wheel would determine the maximum leverage applied to the axle by a given weight. I guess speed and power would be given by these variables.

...And it does make some sense when we see the reductions in speed of the wheels demonstrated and how the power, as demonstrated, increased as a result of these changes.

Where do we see the demonstration of power increase with reduction in speed?

OK, so it's been awhile and I lost track of this thread....I'm pretty sure there are many others. ;-)

He somewhat talks about this himself in GB, Bill. Although he doesn't directly relate the speed as much as he does the size and proportion, I think we can see this relationship is also a part of that....pg. 62-63...J. Collins.

"For if one considers the above-mentioned sizes and proportions of the three machines constructed by Monsieur Orffyreus (At gera, Draschwitz and Mersburg respectively) we can see that the first could only lift a few pounds, the second 40 or so, but the third could lift between70 and 80 lbs. What is more, the method by which this is achieved is very straightforward, consisting of stout pulleys."

There is no direct mention of the decrease of speed associated with the increase of power, but it appears that the speeds did decrease as the wheels size and ability to perform work increased.....is this a direct relation? I digress, Bill.....it could have simply been the bi-directional design that had more of an effect on the speed of the wheel than the ability to do more work.

From what I have gathered, the Gera wheel was approximated at about 56 rpm's, the Draschwitz was closer to 50 rpm's, the Merseburg was at 40 rpm's and the Kassel was at 26 rpm's.


Steve

EDIT: Unbelievable job on that poster of Bessler, Bill.

[Grimer]

Although this has been discussed before on the board it raises yet again some interesting observations - it would be a reasonable assumption [as path_finder says] that if the wheel could self sustain its own motion on an axle on journals on supports, once given an initial impetus, then by all rights it should be able to roll across a flat floor [if it were strong enough] & even run up a slight slope, given that it could do external work which could go into lifting itself & raising its own Pe.

Yet this is not a test that Bessler did that was recorded to my knowledge & you have to wonder why as it would be very impressive & a point of difference, if not a marketing curiosity.

The key imo is that his later bi-directional wheels started from stationary position & then self accelerated up to optimal rpm ... but they needed the dynamics of movement & impetus/momentum to startup IINM.

It would also be reasonable [through lack of evidence to the contrary] to perhaps also conclude that Bessler never had his wheels roll along the floor after a push start because there was some dynamic factor to their operation that didn't work to well, or not at all, if the wheel were allowed to translocate itself in that manner & where the Center of Rotation was not stationary but moving sideways.

When all said & done, intuitively you would expect it to be able to do both modes, but then why was only one recorded ?

I think you've put your finger on it, Fletch.

I seem to remember that I started a thread asking why Bessler didn't let it roll. Unfortunately one can't look at titles of threads only and consequently I've been unable to find it.

I now believe that if the wheel had been allowed to roll it would have twisted itself to the ground I believe rigid supports which transmitted torque to the ground is an essential requirement for his wheel to work. The columns from roof to floor look pretty rigid. Presumably the A frames? in the open were rigidly connected together as well so they could take axle twisting in the horizontal plane. The weight of the wheel would take quite a bit of twisting in the vertical plane.

[jim_mich]

As I looked at it I wondered why Bessler didn't start off his wheel on a flat surface and let it roll. This would have been a spectacular demonstration and people would have instantly appreciated the transport implications of a wheel which rolled and rolled and rolled without ever stopping.

(Took me about a minute to find it,)

[Grimer]

Thanks Jim.


You're obviously much better at search than me. It took me 20 minutes not to find it.

I'd click your greenie apart from the fact I already did a long time ago and there doesn't seem to be any provision for doing it more than once.

[John Collins]

My guess is that even if Bessler had tried this experiment, to run the wheel across the floor or up a slight slope, he wouldn't have demonstrated it in public for security reasons.

His wheels were securely fixed to walls and floors. He was fearful that some one would try to steal his wheel. Also he needed the fixed one to demonstrate its power and therefore didn't need another one present. I guess we'll never know for sure.

JC

[Grimer]

It seems the only thing we are all agreed on is that Bessler didn't allow his wheel to roam. Views seem to range from one boundary, John's, which is that the only thing stopping Bessler was a security consideration and that if Bessler had allowed the wheel to roll it would have done so quite happily including climbing up a slope, say, - to mine at the other boundary which is that freed from its axle constrains the wheel would have acted like the proverbial suitcase with the running internal gyro which caused the French porter carrying it to exclaim "the devil's inside" , or French to that effect, as he tried to take it around a corner.

Such is the power of Google I've actually been able to find this story.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... jokes.html
Another trick perpetrated in the French capital was due to the physicist Jean Perrin (who won the Nobel Prize for his work on the thermal motion of molecules). Perrin mischievously packed a powerful aviation gyroscope into a suitcase, set the gyro spinning and left the suitcase at a Paris railway station. An unsuspecting porter picked up the apparently forgotten luggage, marched off with it and then made the mistake of trying to turn a corner. The case – or, rather, its contents – refused to follow. When the porter attempted to force the unwilling bag to point in the new direction he wanted to travel, it simply rotated on its handle at a bizarre angle and twisted the bewildered man's wrist. Dropping his strange load in alarm, the porter ran off yelling "The Devil himself must be inside!"

[path_finder]

Dear John,

My guess is that even if Bessler had tried this experiment, to run the wheel across the floor or up a slight slope, he wouldn't have demonstrated it in public for security reasons.

Despite my respect for your major contribution, for this particular point I disagree totally with you.
IMHO the only reason why Bessler did not move his wheel by rolling on the floor is a fundamental physical reason: put on the outer rim the wheel cannot work anymore because the applied torque would disappear (or decrease within a significant value) because the new geometry in this position.
I can give three examples (even if it was perhaps NOT the design used by Bessler) for a better understanding of my assumption.

1. Suppose there is a special mechanism inside the wheel for absorbing a certain amount of energy during the previous brake, allowing a strong torque for the next start (a spiral spring being a first approach for this kind of mechanism, but not only) and therefore allowing the centrifugal force to be preeminent quickly.
It is obvious that this torque, acting directly on the main axis of the wheel, will have a completely different value when the wheel will roll on the outer rim, and could be not sufficient for doing the same job.
In addition even if the wheel starts rolling on the floor, there is no certitude during the next stop (if the witnesses can stop the wheel) that the absorber can effectively work as previously for recuperating the energy. In that case Bessler can do ONCE ONLY his demonstration, which could be dangerous for his reputation.

2. If you accept the very clever design from Unbalanced, based on an alternative balancing motion of precession on the both side of the central plane of the wheel, the desired effect will disappear if the outer rim of the wheel is put on the floor.

3. If the pillars take an important role in the wheel primemover (their jerk motion being testified by some witnesses), the removing of these pillars could have an unpredictable effect when the wheel is rolling on the floor. Like per example the intense wobbling of the two elongated arms coming from a new chaotic repartition of the rotation energy.

Anyway we will never know why (even a future working wheel will not be proven used 'de facto' by Bessler).
But the fact that apparently Bessler went not to let climb any of his wheels on a ramp, is still an important clue.

[jim_mich]

Putting Bessler's wheel on the ground verses having it supported by its axles causes only one difference. and that is horizontal motion is combined with its normal rotational motion. Whether or not the horizontal motion would effect the actual working of the wheel would depend totally upon how the wheel worked. The inertial momentum of the weights would be disrupted by the rolling motion. This might cause problems, or it might even enhance the effect.